2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns the extent of consultation required when a local authority reconfigures its day care services and decides to close a day centre. LH, a user of the Hartleys Day Centre, contended that she and others should have been specifically consulted about its closure. The court held that the omission to specifically consult the users and relatives of Hartleys Day Centre before its closure was unlawful. It also found that the Council had complied with its Public Sector Equality Duty as required under the Equality Act 2010. The case demonstrates important principles regarding the extent of the duty to consult by local authorities and the requirements of procedural fairness in public decision-making.
Judgment
Lord Justice Longmore:
Introduction
This is an appeal about the extent of consultation required when a local authority reconfigures its day care services for citizens in its area and then decides to close a day centre. LH is 63 years old, has a learning disability, has been assessed as having substantial care needs and has been using the services of Hartleys Day Centre in Shrewsbury. Shropshire Council (“the Council”) has decided to close that day centre as a result of its re-thinking of day centre care in the county; that re-thinking is itself a result partly of budgetary constraints and partly of encouragement from central Government to give disabled people their own personalised budget for spending in relation to their disability. The Council contends that it consulted generally about the new system which it brought in and made clear that some day centres would close; LH contends by JL (her litigation friend and sister) that LH and others should have been consulted in relation to the closure of Hartleys itself before it occurred. There is also an allegation of failure to comply with the statutory Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) as contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”).
There is no statutory obligation to consult if day care services are withdrawn or substantially altered. But the Council accepts that fairness does require consultation with users. The question that divides the parties is how specific that consultation is to be.
For the last 12 years LH has been living with and cared for by her sister. She attended Hartleys Day Centre originally on 4 days a week and latterly on two days a week with two days at other centres; she has long-standing friendships with other users of the Hartleys day centre.
The Statutory Position
Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 provides:-
“(1) A local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, and to such extent as he may direct in relation to persons ordinarily resident in the area of the local authority shall make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons to whom this section applies, that is to say persons aged eighteen or over who are blind, deaf or dumb, or who suffer from mental disorder of any description and other persons aged eighteen or over who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister.”
Section 2 of the Chronically